Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dixiegrrrrl

(60,075 posts)
5. The Judge's reasoning was along these lines:
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:32 PM
Feb 2012

( Note: I am merely sharing what I have read, not stating agreement)

This is the expanded news report, I could only find the Fox News version:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/20/alabama-courts-wrongful-death-ruling-used-to-recommend-abandoning-viability/?test=latestnews

Parker wrote that 38 states have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, of which 28 protect life from conception, and noted a ruling from last year by his own court that concluded that Alabama's wrongful death law applies to an unborn child at any stage of gestation. He added that at least nine other states permit recovery for the wrongful death of previable unborn children.

"This court recognized the arbitrariness of 'draw(ing) a line that allows recovery on behalf of a fetus injured before viability that dies after achieving viability but that prevents recovery on behalf of a fetus injured that, as a result of those injuries, does not survive to viability,'" Parker wrote.

Extending the argument, Parker, whose opinion was signed by three other judges, wrote that "Roe's statement that unborn children are not 'persons' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant to the question whether unborn children are 'persons' under state law. Because the Fourteenth Amendment 'right' recognized in Roe is not implicated unless state action violates a woman's 'right' to end a pregnancy, the other parts of the superstructure of Roe, including the viability standard, are not controlling outside abortion law."

so this will go up the ladder of courts, I assume, since the ruling is against the doctors who were being sued.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Alabama»Ala Supreme Court rules: ...»Reply #5